Unemployment Benefit Applications Lowest in Almost 50 Years

Just amazes me at the democrats attempts to spin... everything bad in Obama's term was Bush's fault, everything good in Trump's term is Obama's fault...
Just disappoints me that so many fall for the spin.

 

You don't want painful solutions during a recession, you want solutions that end the collapse as quickly as possible, and that is exactly what happened. The US actually recovered much faster than other developed nations, and the EU was bogged down with high unemployment until 2017 when unemployment finally fell below 8%. If there were some nations that recovered more quickly, they weren't the origin of the recession like the US was and their banking system wasn't under thread.

If you don't save the banks then hundreds of millions of people and the businesses that employ them can lose their earns in the bank. If you don't have a banking system, you don't have an economy. Both parties understood that in 2008 and that is why the banking bailout passed with bipartisan support and the economy started recovering in 2009. We also got paid back by the banks with interest, so it wasn't free money and was a very good investment. I think helping home owners is a good idea and I would have done that too.

You seem to be stuck on this idea that banks didn't deserve help, and you are right. But when you are trying to pull the nations from collapse, you can't be obsessed with giving people what they deserve at the expense of actually preventing a collapse. That is why the nation under your leadership would have fallen toward depression, and Congress would have eventually passed a bank bailout, hopefully in time. Or you would have done it yourself eventually out of panick as you watch hundreds of billions of debt being created to help home owners, but they are still going broke as their fortunes in the bank disappear and businesses they depend on collapse when their accounts disappear.

 

So what would have done differently than Obama for mortgages?

 

The recession was 2/3's over by the time he moved to the White House, it ended 6 months later. The job loss rate bottomed out the month he moved to the White House. He and his economic team were fully aware of the economic numbers else they were too incompetent to put into office in the first place.

I would have passed a bill making the Bush tax rates permanent.
I would have issued an executive moratorium on new regulations and a task force to find the ones that were anti-growth to eliminate them.
The bank thing was over at that point and the loans being paid back.
No I would not have played boy-industrialist as Obama did with GM and Chrysler and engage in unfair competition against the other manufactures and auto workers and cost the American taxpayer billions in such a scheme.
No I would not have passed the banking bills which actually hurt small banks and small lenders more than anything else.
I would not have extended unemployment benefits for 4 years and as we have found in the past and have never seen where short terms cuts in payroll taxes help in the long term.

I would have done mostly like Bush and the Republicans did before and during the 2000/2001 slowdown and recession which mostly worked and got us back into a strong economy and full employment with average LFPR's and rising incomes and a Congress and President which then brought the deficit down to a paltry $161B.

 

For all your know his policies helped the recession end quickly. When Obama entered office, the economy was shrinking at a shocking rate unemployment was already almost at that 8% threshold that was supposed to be the worst-case scenario if the stimulus didn't happen, the economy was losing jobs, and the stock market was still tanking. Not a pretty picture.

But the tax cuts were already in effect and there was no sign that they were going to be cancelled any time soon. Impact: Zero.

Would help over the long term recovery, but weeding out regulations takes time and not a great solution to reversing the collapse. Also, some regulations are necessary especially when we want to prevent another recession. Maybe require that regulations be removed when new ones are created. Impact: Modest.

The bank bailout was Bush, I know. But a lot of industries were still in trouble.

As a result millions of auto workers are laid off as their companies decline faster than they did under Obama. Impact: Very harmful.

I do agree that maybe we would have made the regulations more market friendly and delayed them taking effect until after the recession. But we did need something to prevent another recession. Also, these regulations reduced speculation, which might hold the economy back when it is expanding, but speculation wasn't an issue during the collapse, it was the opposite. Impact: Modest.

As a result millions more lose their mortgages and spending declines even faster resulting more job losses and more businesses collapsing.

Some of your deregulation would have modestly benefited the economy but your lack of unemployment benefit extension and auto bailout would have been disasterous. Things would have been better under Obama. Your mistake is your hubris that the economy wasn't in serious trouble anymore w

 

you and they of course know that I have. You were given the data. You have no rebuttal for the data, other than to pretend you didn't get it.

and we can look to Kansas for the conservative petri dish, lol.

 

yes, we have established that this was due to the republican caused recession.

the data shows you to be full of monkey ****.

directly refuted

 

you of course know you've been refuted, with the congressional voting record and historical economic data. that data doesn't go away because you don't like it.

 

No. You falsely credited one man for the efforts of millions of hard working Americans and falsely claimed that government helps business when they can only hinder it. Even if the government puts money into the economy, they have to take it from working people first and a lot of it sticks to their fingers.

Maybe you have never owned a business and don't understand how excessive taxes prevent growth.

When you factor in the cost of living and quality of life, Kansas ranks significantly higher than CA. (And they don't need a poop map!)

 

Since I reject the premise of you statement it is false once again.

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah when you can't refute the facts just claim you already have............how lame.

Obama said his stimulus would hold unemployment to just 8% and then it would quickly fall back to full employment. How successful was it by his own measure of success for it?

 

no, it didn't. the right wing simply likes to fabricate their own facts.

 

It was already ending when he won the election, it was 2/3's over, the job loss rate began receding the month he took office because we had turned the corner. The 8% was the worst case WITH the stimulus. Instead with the stimulus we still hit the worst case and it stayed over 8% for the next 4 years. Obama and his policies did not "keep us out of a depression" did not "turn the corner" or any of the other tired old cliche's. Even Obama when it was pointed out it failed had to come up with the lame "well those shovel ready jobs weren't shovel ready" excuse.

And they were scheduled to expire and the Democrats ran on higher tax rates. That confused the markets and investors, we didn't know where they were going.

Trump has done a VERY good job of it. Explain to me how a rush of more anti-business, anti-banking, anti-energy regulations is the key to getting the economy out of a recession and into a full recovery

The financial system is like a utility system, like the energy grid, like the water systems etc. They are vital to our subsistence. The "bail out" was a couple of months of bridge loans extended to the banks and they were all paid off early WITH INTEREST. We made money off of them. It was not some free money hand out to the banks.

As a result plants making cars no one wanted to buy, two businesses who's unions had driven their cost to being non-competitive would have gone through a normal bankruptcy, the profitable parts would have been bought and the non-profitable parts allowed to die and other manufacturers would have picked up market share and expanded their manufacturing and labor forces. The American taxpayer, including workers at those other plants who compete with the GM and Chrysler workers had to pay out of pocket for Obama's loses. And where are we now. GM shutting down those inefficient costly plants and Chrysler is owned by a foreign company.

We can't regulate away recessions. They are naturally occurring as part of the business cycle and trying to come out of a slowdown and recessions is exactly when we need speculation, we need investors speculating on coming out of the recession and where capital should be allocated. You think a bunch of government workers in DC are better able to determine that?

No as a result people would go back to work. That's what happened in the welfare reform under Gingrich and Kasich which turns people who are a government expense into a source of government revenue. Obama's continued extensions on unemployment benefits, easily the work requirement rules for able bodied workers, expanding all welfare programs pushed the LFPR to modern day lows. It has only started to recover as Republican rolled back those policies.

Wrong again, Obama's policies of the opposite were disastrous and we are still paying the price with that LFPR number and the deficits and debt he and the Democrats ran up. They never even came close to the Bush/Republican WORST deficits. And I didn't say the economy "wasn't in trouble", talk about hubris, I have been quite clear in what I said.

 

Yeah it did, the job loss rate bottomed out January of 2009 and the recession ended the following June before any Obama stimulus. Refute the facts.

 

yes. you were given the data.

 

I don't give a **** what you reject. reality doesn't either. The recession was caused by republicans. This has been proven.

you of course know I've given you the facts and data which show your bullshit to be just that

 

Only you in your mind not in reality.

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah when you can't refute the facts just claim you already have............how lame.

Not stop with the desperate dodging and answer the question.

Obama said his stimulus would hold unemployment to just 8% and then it would quickly fall back to full employment. How successful was it by his own measure of success for it?

 

the right wing is taking credit for normal market trends. the previous guy turned a Recession around.

 

Normal market conditions would be we have a recession and how exactly did Obama turn around the recession?

 

How do you know it was in a recovery direction when Obama took office and his actions didn't help speed the recovery? It may have been 2/3 over because of Obama's actions.

Easy to refute. The study that produced the 8% estimate was a projection only and not at all a promise and admitted extreme uncertainly and a very high margin of error. They even admitted that other forecasters projected unemployment topping out at 11%. In fact when the stimulus passed in Feb 2009, unemployment was already at 8.3% and had already blown past the 8% cap. Things were worse than projected and backs up my argument that the economy was in need of serious stimulus and bailouts.

I can see how the possibility of a future tax increase might hamper growth a bit, and Obama should have come out and delivered permanent tax cuts for businesses. The tax increases were also only speculative and there was no sign of it happening and were on the wealthy not their businesses. In addition Obama had passed tax cuts in his stimulus. Revenue shortfalls and trying to stay afloat was their real concern.

What specific anti-business regulations were passed that significantly hampered the recovery in the 2009-2010 time period? Obama should have implemented toned down regulations on Wall Street and Banks to prevent another recession, that would only come into effect after the recession, and simplify our existing regulations. He wasn't that pro-business, that is a fine point.

I agree with Bush's bipartisan bank bailout. No debate here.

People didn't want to buy cars because they didn't have any money, not because the cars were bad. If we just laid off the auto workers because people't couldn't afford their cars, then they will spend less because they now can't afford anything, and other companies and will go under or lay off employees because of reduced consumer spending. You need to keep consumer spending up during a recession or it will spiral downwards and the best way to do this is to limit layoffs and boost spending by borrowing. The auto companies also paid back most of what they borrowed and the taxpayers only took a measly 9 billion hit.

We need speculation but the speculation that was happening was basically gambling with other people's money. Its fine if its your own money, but when you are using other people's money and the economy can collapse from this, we need to regulate that.

People can't go back to work when there is only 1 job opening for every 7 unemployed, and consumer spending is declining because the auto workers were fired, the unemployment aren't spending their checks, and there is no economic stimulus. What welfare program was permanently expanded under Obama? The LFPR didn't decline because people didn't want to work, it declined because the jobs weren't there.

There is no clear evidence that Obama's regulations or tax policies significantly affected the early recovery. But there is strong evidence that not extending unemployment benefits, no stimulus, and no auto bailout would have been a complete disaster.

 

right wing special pleading? look at the charts.

 

I asked

How exactly did Obama turn around the recession? What did he do?

 

It was 2/3's over when he became President he had had no actions yet. The job loss rate bottomed out the month he took office and had greatly receded long before any of his stimulus started to be spent and put in place.

The study and the number was what they sold it on. It was his economic councils figures as to what would happen with and without the $900B stimulus. Things had been worse for a year, did they miss it all, the job loss rate was bottoming out and they didn't realize how bad things had been. And the rate stayed over 9% for over a year and over 8% for 3 more. During the 2000/2001 recession thanks in part to the Republican responses it hit a one month peak of 6.5% and quickly turned around and we had 52 months of mostly full employment with average labor force participation rates.

The Democrat policies failed to mitigate the depth and length of the recession with their policies and failed to get us into a full vigorous recovery as normally happens after recessions. We DON'T need to go back to them.

He and the Democrats ran on repealing them and the current crop want nothing more than to raise taxes on individuals and corporations. LOTS of wealthy people use pass through accounting and taxation for their businesses.

Are you really denying the regulatory binge the Obama administration engage in hampered the recovery?

No they didn't want to buy GM cars, the other manufacturers were selling cars and not going bankrupt. People weren't going to stop buying cars or other things because of GM's woes. Oh just 9 billion.....................

No it was the investors speculating with their money, they take it out when economies fall then put it back in into ventures they speculate will do good in the future.

And they won't go back to work at a lesser job if they can just sit out, and the LFPR didn't decline because people couldn't work. Obama extended benefits, lowered work requirements it's why we still have record numbers of people on food stamps years after the recession ended and that cost money. Gingrich and Kasich proved it as did Bush tighten work requirements and limit how long and people magically go back to work.

What would prove it to you? We had a disaster as it was WITH those policies. GEEZ $900 BILLION just for the stimulus and it didn't work. How about trying the previous proven policies?

 

Why do you care; the charts claim it happened. You were here. I was here. Why do you have a problem understanding what happened to turn the economy around?

 

nope, right here in reality. With congressional voting record showing it.

you of course know I've given you the facts and data which show your bullshit to be just that

 

Na your just posting to once again show your complete and utter hatred of anything Trump or related therefore to.